Talk:National awakening of Romania
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- "Thus, Romania was created, albeit a Romania that excluded Transylvania, where Romanian nationalism inevitably ran up against Hungarian nationalism, a conflict that persists to this day." The sentence about the persistence of Romanian/Hungarian conflict is not valid. Not in Romania, I don't know how the things are in Seattle.
- The title, "National awakening of Romania", is not well-translated by "Renaşterea naţională a României". A better formulation is "Deşteptarea naţională a României".
--Vasile 14:14, 26 May 2004 (UTC)
Hmm. My remarks here were certainly not based on my experiences in Seattle, they were based on what I've heard and read in both Hungary and Romania. Unsurprisingly, this is less of a burning issue in Romania and among ethnic Romanians than in Hungary and among ethnic Hungarians, because currently it is Romania tha controls Transylvania (albeit, since the fall of Communism, with quite decent treatment of the ethnic Hungarians living there). Still, in my experience, the majority of Hungarians in Hungary are even now (at best) condescending and (at worst) actively hostile towards Romania, and I have certainly heard Romanians speak badly of Hungary more than of any other neighboring nation (although there are certainly some mixed feelings about Bulgaria as well). On the Hungarian side, I could certainly cite sources (although it would take me some time to track it down); on the Romanian side, I'm not sure I can find written sources, but I have had literally dozens, perhaps hundreds, of conversations on the topic with people in Romania. Still, I have to respect Vasile's experience as relevant, since I take it that he is himself an ethnic Romanian living in Romania, and if he wants to delete the phrase for now, I don't object. I'd appreciate if anyone else wants to weigh in.
If you want to negotiate the Romanian-language title, that would best be done in the Romanian-language Wikipedia. I'm not sure which came first, and it looks like the link to the Romanian-language article is currently broken in any case. -- Jmabel 17:33, 26 May 2004 (UTC)
- Yet, I see no reason to keep the mention "a conflict that persists to this day". The source of ancient conflict was the ierarchy of the nations. This is past. --Vasile 15:36, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)
-
- It's not like everything is rosy between romanians and hungarians. There are no violence and mostly just talks (especially during election campaigns :) ), but it is there. Maybe the wording should be changed to reflect that. MihaiC 11:39, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)
- In reality, there is no conflict, not even during election campaign. Talk doesn't mean conflict. Talk is good. --Vasile 13:17, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)
- It's not like everything is rosy between romanians and hungarians. There are no violence and mostly just talks (especially during election campaigns :) ), but it is there. Maybe the wording should be changed to reflect that. MihaiC 11:39, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Well, you are both right :D. There is still a nationalism confrontation between romanian and hungarian, but the tone is much lower. Except for the extremist nationalists from both sides, everybody knows that radical changes (modification of borders, extended authonomy) aren't possible, so most of this confrontation is just talk. Since hungarians are those who want to change the statu-quo, there is no wonder that they are more active/louder. "Renaştere" means "rebirth", so I think that "Deşteptare" is better. -- MihaiC 31 May 2004
I'd go for "Deşteptare", too, but this isn't the place to discuss it, it should be discussed in the Romanian wikipedia. -- Jmabel 17:46, 31 May 2004 (UTC)
On the issue of "conflict": Mihai, can you suggest a wording? It's obvious that Vasile and I simply disagree on this point and that repeating our respective views is not bringing us closer to consensus. Again, though, this is no big deal to me. I already (1) toned down the wording and (2) said that "if he wants to delete the phrase for now, I don't object." -- Jmabel 21:46, Jun 4, 2004 (UTC)
- With all respect, I am waiting to hear if anybody can nominate a real actual conflict or divergence of interest between Romanians and Hungarians because I see none. I am not obstinate to erase that sentence. I do not consider that we have a disagreement. --Vasile 00:40, 5 Jun 2004 (UTC)
We can say that the "conflict" between romanians and hungarians is today just between the respective extremists that are marginalised by the majority on both sides. Pastor Laslo Tokes (honorary president of UDMR) come from time with time with incendiary speeches, but the party (UDMR) doesn't agree or sustain him. The same, the Great Romania Party is going down since the last election. Real examples of conflict : hungarians wants a much larger authonomy (economic, lingvistic, administrative, political etc) while romanian oppose that and some would like to take back what hungarians got in the last few years. Just a few days back a romanian mayor refused to celebrate a marriage because the groom (french citizen of magyar origin) said "Ighen, da, oui", in that order. Also about 500,000 hungarians from Transylvania got that "legitimatie de maghiar"/"magyar ID". MihaiC 09:59, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)
In order to replace the sentence "...a conflict that persists to this day", I propose something like that: "Today, the mutual disrespect between significant number of Hungarian and Romanian individuals is reminding about the root of the ancient conflict." --Vasile 12:54, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)
- Fine as a direction to go, but not well worded. How about: "Even today, this ancient conflict leaves a legacy of mutual disrespect between significant number of individuals of Hungarian and Romanian origin." -- Jmabel 16:55, Jun 8, 2004 (UTC)
- How about: "Today, this ancient conflict is used as pretext for the mutual disrespect between significant number of individuals of Hungarian and Romanian origin." --Vasile 17:19, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)
[edit] Tudor Vladimirescu 1821
shouldn't Tudor Vladimirescu and his pandurs be considered as revolutionaries expressing the idea of National Awakening ? or was he only about Independence of Valahia ? -- criztu
- Yes, the beginning of the "National awakening" of Romania is generally considered the year 1821, with Tudor Vladimirescu. Bogdan | Talk 17:02, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
